Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

> On Dec 11, 2021, at 02:44 , John Curran wrote: > > >> On 10 Dec 2021, at 5:00 PM, John Gilmore > > wrote: >> ... >> Owen, the root of your problem is that you signed an LRSA with ARIN, >> rather than keeping your legacy resources un-tainted by an ARIN contract >> that

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On 10 Dec 2021, at 5:00 PM, John Gilmore mailto:g...@toad.com>> wrote: ... Owen, the root of your problem is that you signed an LRSA with ARIN, rather than keeping your legacy resources un-tainted by an ARIN contract that deliberately reduced your rights Signing a contract with ARIN certainly

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me > from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources. Owen, the root of your problem is that you signed an LRSA with ARIN, rather than keeping your legacy resources un-tainted by an ARIN

Re: ARIN customers / members (was: Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation)

On 9 Dec 2021, at 1:57 PM, Randy Bush mailto:ra...@psg.com>> wrote: ... as i do not follow arin news, i found this even more interesting The situation for ARIN’s IPv4/IPv6 customers will change in January, when all customers with IPv4 and/or IPv6 number resources will pay on the same fee table

Re: ARIN customers / members (was: Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation)

On 9 Dec 2021, at 12:44 PM, heasley mailto:h...@shrubbery.net>> wrote: ... So, fees will be reduced, given all this new income? The existing 7500 ISP customers fees are unchanged. For the more than 8000 end-users customers, the fee structure change means they will now pay the same fees as

Re: ARIN customers / members (was: Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation)

hi joh, thanks for numbers in the shape i remember them. my only comment would be a nit > 15250 Legacy non-contracted (receiving services w/o fee or agreement / Not > Members) ^ some as i do not follow arin news, i found this even more interesting >

Re: ARIN customers / members (was: Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation)

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 4:52 AM John Curran wrote: > In a month (January 2022) it will become - > > 16000 ARIN IPv4/IPv6 customers (i.e. services under an RSA and with > membership rights) > 15250 Legacy non-contracted (receiving services w/o fee or agreement / > Not Members) > >

Re: ARIN customers / members (was: Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation)

Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 12:52:45PM +, John Curran: > So we’re approximately here at the beginning of December 2021 - > >7500 ISPs (i.e. services under an RSA / Members) >8500 End-users (i.e. services under an RSA / Not Members Today) > 15250 Legacy non-contracted (receiving

Re: ARIN customers / members (was: Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation)

On 9 Dec 2021, at 7:55 AM, William Herrin mailto:b...@herrin.us>> wrote: On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 3:35 AM John Curran mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote: So we’re approximately here at the beginning of December 2021 - 7500 ISPs (i.e. services under an RSA / Members) 8500 End-users

Re: ARIN customers / members (was: Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation)

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 3:35 AM John Curran wrote: > So we’re approximately here at the beginning of December 2021 - > > 7500 ISPs (i.e. services under an RSA / Members) > 8500 End-users (i.e. services under an RSA / Not Members Today) > 15250 Legacy non-contracted

ARIN customers / members (was: Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation)

On 8 Dec 2021, at 1:47 PM, Randy Bush mailto:ra...@psg.com>> wrote: hi john While that was inevitable at ARIN’s inception and continued for many years, it is not currently the case that there are more legacy customers than paying customers i am easily confused. so just to keep my nouns the

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 9:54 AM William Herrin wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 9:49 AM Randy Bush wrote: > > > While that was inevitable at ARIN’s inception and continued for many > > > years, it is not currently the case that there are more legacy > > > customers than paying customers > > > >

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 9:49 AM Randy Bush wrote: > > While that was inevitable at ARIN’s inception and continued for many > > years, it is not currently the case that there are more legacy > > customers than paying customers > > i am easily confused. so just to keep my nouns the same over

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

hi john > While that was inevitable at ARIN’s inception and continued for many > years, it is not currently the case that there are more legacy > customers than paying customers i am easily confused. so just to keep my nouns the same over history, could you phrase that in terms of resource

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On 7 Dec 2021, at 2:51 PM, Randy Bush mailto:ra...@psg.com>> wrote: I can't imagine, as a percentage, a significant amount of voting ARIN members give a crap about what happens with legacy resources. there are more legacy non-members than total members. wonder why? Randy - While that was

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

> On Dec 6, 2021, at 19:28, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 5:59 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > >> The situation is such that the current economic incentives would be most >> advantageous to me to preserve my LRSA and abandon my RSA, which would >> involve simply turning off

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 10:53 AM Randy Bush wrote: > > I can't imagine, as a percentage, a significant amount of voting ARIN > > members give a crap about what happens with legacy resources. > > there are more legacy non-members than total members. wonder why? The real issue with Mike's

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

> I can't imagine, as a percentage, a significant amount of voting ARIN > members give a crap about what happens with legacy resources. there are more legacy non-members than total members. wonder why? randy

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On 12/7/21 8:48 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: I can't imagine, as a percentage, a significant amount of voting ARIN members give a crap about what happens with legacy resources. If I had legacy resources I might, but I don't so it's an issue that I bounce between fully ignore or don't see why I

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

: "William Herrin" To: "John Curran" Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:34:46 AM Subject: Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:25 AM John Curran wrote: > On 6 Dec 2021, at 4:59 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: >

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

Folks - Please remember this mail list is in place to provide for an exchange of technical information and the discussion of specific implementation issues that require cooperation among network service providers. The Mailing List is not an appropriate platform to resolve personal issues,

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 3:25 AM John Curran wrote: > On 6 Dec 2021, at 4:59 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: > > If ARIN's fee structure is such that it is financially advantageous for any > > class of network operators to turn off IPv6, they're doing it wrong IMHO. > > The situation is exactly opposite

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On 6 Dec 2021, at 4:59 PM, Jay Hennigan wrote: > > On 12/6/21 09:59, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> The situation is such that the current economic incentives would be most >> advantageous to me to preserve my LRSA and abandon my RSA, which would >> involve simply turning off IPv6. > > If

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 5:59 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > The situation is such that the current economic incentives would be most > advantageous to me to preserve my LRSA and abandon my RSA, which would > involve simply turning off IPv6. While the details are certainly yours to keep private, from

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

>> https://archive.psg.com/160524.ripe-transfer.pdf > > In your slides above you mentioned '... just pay ...' , Most > of the RIR's webpages (at least to me) are a warren of forward and > backward references . > Could you or any kind soul post a url that diffinatively > defines the fee

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

Hello Randy , On Mon, 6 Dec 2021, Randy Bush wrote: You could transfer the resources to RIPE... :-) been there. done that. 2016. "A Happy Story of Inter-RIR Transfer of Legacy Blocks from ARIN to RIPE" https://archive.psg.com/160524.ripe-transfer.pdf In your slides above you

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 1:00 PM Jay Hennigan wrote: > If ARIN's fee structure is such that it is financially advantageous for > any class of network operators to turn off IPv6, they're doing it wrong > IMHO. Hi Jay, Nearly a decade ago I ran for the ARIN Board of Trustees on the platform that

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On 12/6/21 09:59, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: The situation is such that the current economic incentives would be most advantageous to me to preserve my LRSA and abandon my RSA, which would involve simply turning off IPv6. If ARIN's fee structure is such that it is financially advantageous

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

> You could transfer the resources to RIPE... :-) been there. done that. 2016. "A Happy Story of Inter-RIR Transfer of Legacy Blocks from ARIN to RIPE" https://archive.psg.com/160524.ripe-transfer.pdf randy

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 19:08, Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > Unfortunately, when the board did change the terms, it was made quite > clear that the only way to terminate the LRSA was to surrender my resources > in the process. > You could transfer the resources to RIPE... :-)

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On 6 Dec 2021, at 2:07 PM, Owen DeLong mailto:o...@delong.com>> wrote: On Dec 5, 2021, at 9:03 AM, John Curran mailto:jcur...@arin.net>> wrote: Owen - The RSA and LRSA agreements are identical, however, it is true that you would lose legacy holder resource status (for those IPv4 resources

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

I strongly encourage my competitors to turn off IPv6, so I hope you convince one of them to do so. ;-) Rubens On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 2:59 PM Owen DeLong wrote: > > > > > On Dec 5, 2021, at 7:41 AM, Gary Buhrmaster > > wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG > >

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

> On Dec 5, 2021, at 10:42 AM, William Herrin wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 7:43 AM Gary Buhrmaster > wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >>> The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented >>> me from signing the LRSA for my

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

> On Dec 5, 2021, at 9:03 AM, John Curran wrote: > > Owen - > > The RSA and LRSA agreements are identical, however, it is true that you would > lose legacy holder resource status (for those IPv4 resources issued to you > before ARIN’s formation) if you consolidate to a single Org with one

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

> On Dec 5, 2021, at 7:41 AM, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > >> The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me >> from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources. > > There were some community participants

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 7:43 AM Gary Buhrmaster wrote: > On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented > > me from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources. > > There were some community participants that

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

Owen - The RSA and LRSA agreements are identical, however, it is true that you would lose legacy holder resource status (for those IPv4 resources issued to you before ARIN’s formation) if you consolidate to a single Org with one bill under the RSA. For the curious, there are two implications

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 2:23 PM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > The double billing (had it been present at the time) would have prevented me > from signing the LRSA for my IPv4 resources. There were some community participants that suggested that having a formal relationship with the ARIN

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

> On Dec 5, 2021, at 4:24 AM, Rubens Kuhl wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 12:00 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: >> >> I would be more than happy to consilolidate my ipv6 addresses under my lrsa, >> but ARIN will not allow it. > > > And they are right in doing so. You can't have your

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

> On Dec 4, 2021, at 8:24 PM, Sylvain Baya wrote: > > Dear NANOGers, > > Le dim. 5 déc. 2021 04:00, Owen DeLong via NANOG > a écrit : > I would be more than happy to consilolidate my ipv6 addresses under my lrsa, > but ARIN will not allow it. > > > Hi Owen, >

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

I’d also be willing to consolidate under RSA if I could get the same protections I have under LRSA. ARIN won’t do that, either. Owen > On Dec 4, 2021, at 7:12 PM, John Curran wrote: > > Owen - > > Correct - ARIN will not allow you to bring non-legacy resources under > an LRSA

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

On Sun, Dec 5, 2021 at 12:00 AM Owen DeLong via NANOG wrote: > > I would be more than happy to consilolidate my ipv6 addresses under my lrsa, > but ARIN will not allow it. And they are right in doing so. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Rubens

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

Owen - Correct - ARIN will not allow you to bring non-legacy resources under an LRSA agreement. Thanks, /John John Curran President and CEO American Registry for Internet Numbers > On 4 Dec 2021, at 9:59 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > > I would be more than happy to consilolidate my

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

I would be more than happy to consilolidate my ipv6 addresses under my lrsa, but ARIN will not allow it. Owen > On Dec 4, 2021, at 17:43, John Curran wrote: > >  Yes Owen, that is correct… > > If an organization insists on maintaining multiple contractual relationships > with ARIN (for

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

Yes Owen, that is correct… If an organization insists on maintaining multiple contractual relationships with ARIN (for whatever reason) then they will be billed for each relation separately - and that is indeed likely to be more than having a single consolidated agreement for all number

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

> On Dec 4, 2021, at 8:59 AM, John Curran wrote: > > Just for clarity - ARIN’s fee schedule is such that ISP customers (i.e. those > with registration service plans) pay an annual services fee based on their > higher category of IPv4 or IPv6 resources – i.e. those with IPv4 resources > can

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

:nanog-bounces+david=xtom@nanog.org>> on behalf of Edvinas Kairys mailto:edvinas.em...@gmail.com>> Sent: Saturday, December 4, 2021 4:44:58 AM To: NANOG Operators' Group mailto:nanog@nanog.org>> Subject: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation Hello, We're setting up IPv6 net

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

> On Dec 3, 2021, at 12:44 PM, Edvinas Kairys wrote: > > Hello, > > We're setting up IPv6 network is USA. Our company has branches and different > legal entities in EU and US. We've some ipv6 PI subnets already allocated by > RIPE for EU datacenters. I have few questions: > > 1) Is it

Re: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

:44:58 AM To: NANOG Operators' Group Subject: questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation Hello, We're setting up IPv6 network is USA. Our company has branches and different legal entities in EU and US. We've some ipv6 PI subnets already allocated by RIPE for EU datacenters. I have few questions: 1

questions about ARIN ipv6 allocation

Hello, We're setting up IPv6 network is USA. Our company has branches and different legal entities in EU and US. We've some ipv6 PI subnets already allocated by RIPE for EU datacenters. I have few questions: 1) Is it possible to reuse some portion of RIPE allocated ipv6 addresses in USA ? Or we